text:
Which manufacturer produced this fan blade?
I acquired a fan blade a few years back, but have not had any luck finding out who manufactured it or what engine/aircraft it may have come from.
The only data I can find on the blade is as follows:
4922T12P01
99207 6018730P02
KGA 65444
GR.IN.
15.620
65444 is hand engraved again in larger size above the data listed, which I assume is the serial number. The blade is about 15" from tip to root. I am curious about the root itself, as I have not seen other blades with a mount like this one. If anyone can help out it would be greatly appreciated.

Images can be seen in full size by clicking on them

GE Aviation
Clue 1. Parts designed at the Lynn MA plant have part numbers of the form xxxxTxxPxx, where x is a digit. 4922T12P01 fits that pattern.
The gr.in is another clue. That refers to a weight that would be used in balancing the fan. GE uses units of gr.in. I'm fairly sure that Pratt uses oz.in, snecma uses gr.cm. I'm not sure what RR uses.
But the definitive piece of information is 99207. That is a CAGE code. 99207 is registered to GE Aviation's lynn plant. I looked it up here http://www.govcagecodes.com/

Good lord... what kind of monster measures torque in gram-inches?! :'(

Well GE does, but it's not a torque.  It's the mass of the part in grams multiplied by the radial distance from the centerline.  When the part spins, the centrifugal force is proportional to this quantity.  i.e. $F=mr\omega^2$  You want to put heavy blades opposite each other, such that their centrifugal forces balance each other out.

My first thought reading gr.in. is grain-inches.

I was not able to find a publicly available GE manual describing this, but I can assure you it is gram-inches.  This site is a pretty good overall of rotor balancing processes (not jet engine specific) http://www.engdyn.com/images/uploads/93-balance_this%21_-_peg&tdf.pdf and on page 2 they mention typical units of ounce-inch, gram-millimeter, and gram-inch.

@DanielKiracofe Still, the point stands - I'm not even sure what you would call the chimeric unit of force defined by gr-in/s^2.  The "Freedom Dyne"?  Have we learned nothing from the Mars Climate Orbiter?

@J... not that I'd advocate the use of units like gram-inches, but IMO what we should most of all learn from the Mars Climate Orbiter is the importance of always making units explicit. GE has done this here.

@leftaroundabout The SIS did make the units explicit for the MCO mission, to be fair.  It just wasn't followed.  That said, GE seems to have at least three typical units in use here, one of which is a complete frankenstein.  One could say that it unnecessarily creates obvious avenues for error.

Amazing research.

That looks very much like a TF-34 fan blade. The TF-34 is used on the A-10 Thunderbolt and S-3B Viking. The root style is known as "pinned" or "clevis". You can see a blade being pinned into the rotor hub in this photo:

And there is a clear view of the blade root in this photo:

U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Steven Valencia, 18th Component Maintenance Squadron aerospace propulsion journeyman, cleans and inspects fan blades of a TF-34 engine July 6, 2017, at Kadena Air Base, Japan. The fan blades are used to generate approximately 85 percent of the thrust used by A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman John Linzmeier)

Very good addition to @DanielKiracofe 's finding.

Thank you all for the great information...I have emailed GE as well to see if I can get more detail on manufacture date, but have not heard back as of yet. I am new to this site, but am extremely impressed with the responses and knowledge out there.

This is a delayed reply. Your fan blade is made of Ti 8-1-1. The gage code is GE however there are only two manufacturers for this fan blade since 1965. The original manufacturer was Utica Drop Forge which became Kelsey Hayes and later became Utica Corporation and currently known as TECT Corporation. The other manufacture was Sermatech Mexico for a very short period of time. Sermatech struggled with holding the geometry of the Ti 8-1-1 material.
Besides the TF34 this almost exact fan blade also goes on the CF34 (Canadair Regional Jet). There are 28 fan blades per engine. Besides the part number the only difference between the military version and the commercial version is the uncut in the platform. This uncut (thinning) of the platform allows for the fan blade to be released on the military version Incase of a fan blade failure. Without this thinning, multiple blades would fail in a domino effect.
The fan blade is precision forged from 2” diameter bar in a 8000 metric ton press (8800 US Tons). After forging it is finished machined.
The manufacturer must retain records for 30 years. The serial number are sequential. GE would need to ask one of the manufacturers for the date of manufacture. The fan blade is not a life limited component and no manufacturing date are applied to the part.
Cheers


text:
Do commercial aircraft have electrical outlets?
As we see trains nowadays with sockets for you to plug your laptop into, as well as Wi-Fi on-board both trains and planes, I'm wondering why you don't see electrical outlets on planes?
Do any airlines have sockets in the cabin? How about in first class?

Plenty of aircraft have USB power, which powers a majority of portable devices these days. Or are you asking specifically about mains power? And if so, which standard?

greg has a point nearly every country has a different standard for its plugs, and you have to be carefull of 110V vs. 220V

I've multiple types of mains power on aircraft, though in Economy they might be deliberately missing or hidden in obscure locations (e.g. under the seat in front).

As a matter of curiosity, some 747-100 and -200 aircraft had a 115v electrical outlet in the cockpit. However, it was as I remember 400 cycles. We plugged our laptops in occasionally, and that worked fine.

This depends on the airline, but to answer your question:  Yes, some airlines do have electrical outlets in the cabin.  It seems that since the FAA relaxed the rules on portable devices that the airlines are seeing the need to add them to more of their fleet.
For example:

US Airways has a Business Tools webpage which tells which of their aircraft have outlets.  There are some in both coach and first class.
United has an Inflight connectivity and power webpage whichs shows that a lot of their fleet has electrical outlets and more are coming.

There are different types of outlets, and some of them require an adapter to use while others don't.

A long time ago, probably 12 years or so, I was on a 747 from Hawaii, where I lived, to NY - and I remember having a 12v outlet under my seat.  It was the only time I ever saw an outlet in an airliner.

Several of the answers here seem to suggest that this only happens in first or business class. While that was historically true, it's not so true anymore. Airlines such as Cathay Pacific and Korean Air, for instance, have them at every seat in most (or all?) of their long-haul aircraft. Delta also has it in parts of economy on several of their long-haul configurations as well as in all of economy on their recently-acquired 717s and 737-900ERs. You can check with your specific airline or with sites like Seat Guru before booking to determine what is available on any given aircraft and at which seats.
As Lnafziger said, some airlines' systems require adapters, while others don't. At least from personal experience, it seems that most of the recent ones do not. On Korean Air, Cathay, and Delta, the plugs are designed to be able to fit any of the standard power plug types (e.g. North American, European, Asian, etc.) Since most new electronic devices use auto-switching power supplies, they should accept the 110V/60Hz supplied by most of these systems, even if they're designed for 220V/50Hz markets.
Here's a picture of one of the outlets in economy on the Delta 717s. Notice that the holes are cut such that any of the standard plug types will fit in it. The slot on the bottom is a USB power port.

To answer your question of "why don't you see them," I think it comes down to power requirements.
As mentioned, new-ish first/business class generally will have outlets available. You can explore different aircraft here.
The reason it's not available in every seat is capacity. If you have 150 people pulling 75W, that's 11.25 kW. On a 737 NG, each of the two generators is rated at 90KVA. However, they need most of that power to run the radio equipment, avionics, lights, galleys, window heat, entertainment system, and everything else on the plane that runs on electrical power. So besides a possible upgrade of the generators/power system, this also adds the weight of running cables and having outlets at every seat. It's a lot easier to do that sort of thing on a train car, where it doesn't have to fly and can get power from the locomotive.
You can find more about the 737 electric system here.

I had it on a flight with Cathay Pacific in economy class. Power was intermittent, but I could do the whole HK-Paris flight (about 12h) with my laptop on.

Some EMB-145 models have a 120v AC outlet mounted in the cabin just below the cockpit door.  This was powered by an inverter (EMB-145 is 100% DC busses).  It wasn't for passenger use (primarily for cleaning crews) and I didn't trust the power coming out of it enough to plug in a laptop, though we sometimes did charge our phones with it.
Some larger airplanes have 120v AC in the cabin mounted at a subset of seats.  I can't recall which airlines, but I have been in a 757 and a corporate CRJ-700 that had this kind of power installed.

For some airlines (such as Cathay Pacific, for instance,) that subset is every single seat.

They are universally available since maybe 10 to 15 years, but only in Business and First, and normally would accept both US and European plugs. In Economy you are out of luck, but if you consider that most airlines have reduced Economy seating pitch to the minimum 31", laptop use is near impossible there, anyway.
I have seen one instance a few years ago on an older 747 where they had a proprietary socket and would hand out adapters for the different laptops. Naturally, the adapter kit was of the same age and unusable on some modern laptops.

Several airlines have A/C power in economy on their long-haul aircraft, though it is less common on aircraft configured for short-haul flights.

Power Sockets are getting pretty common these days. Most of the Widebodies (specially 777 and 380's have power outlets for 2 out of 3 Seats in each row). The Power Ratings also are 110V 60Hz commonly.

Who are you being contrary to?

I was contradicting the question itself as it said "I'm wondering why you don't see electrical outlets on planes?"

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Why do the F-22 and F-35 look similar to each other and different from previous designs?
Is there a reason the F-22 and F-35 look very similar other than style, they look very different to F-16s so is there a conscious effort to make them look cool?

"Looking cool" is not usually a requirement in military procurement...

ymb1 is right - stealth and not styling determine the looks of both the F-22 and the F-35. But there is more to it.
Watch Lockheed test pilot Tom Morgenfeld talk about them in this video:

The juicy bits are at 37:15' and at 43:35' into the video. Concerning the F-22 he says: Northrop built the F-23 exactly to what the Air Force asked for, while Lockheed built what the Air Force secretly wanted. And that was another F-15, with similar manoeuvrability.
Concerning the F-35 he says Lockheed's goal was to build an aircraft which is at least as good as an F-18 around the ship. This means manoeuvrability to land on a carrier even from off-nominal conditions; very forgiving to fly. By using the F-22 baseline, this manoeuvrability could be ensured.
Now look at all three of them:

McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle (picture source)

Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor (picture source)

Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II (picture source)

They look similar, don't they? Differences like a forward swept trailing edge and canted verticals are due to stealth, as is edge alignment.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What is a TRACON?

What is a TRACON or Terminal Control?
When do pilots need to be helped by a TRACON?
Where is it usually located and what is the difference between TRACON, En Route and Tower?

For smaller planes that do not get too high, we are often handed off from Tower, to Approach (which would be a TRACON facility it seems) to Approach to Approach, and eventually back to a Tower.  If between TRACONs, and high enough up, we might get handed to a Center for part of the route.

What is a TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach CONtrol)?
A TRACON is a term used in the US for what is elsewhere known as the Terminal Control (ICAO terminology), the control in charge of operations around one or more large airports. It doesn't manage ATC at airports, which is provided by TOWERs. TRACON is therefore an intermediate step used for:

Climbing departing flights received from TOWERs and handing them over to ARTCC.
Descending cruising flights received from ARTCC and handing them over to airfield TOWERs

(Source)
FAA describes a TRACON like this:

TRACON controllers generally handle within a 30- to 50-mile radius of
an airport and up to 10 000 feet, as well as aircraft flying over that
airspace. They are responsible for the safe separation of aircraft
flying in the busy areas surrounding airports.

When do pilots need to be helped by a TRACON?
Pilots are directed to a TRACON center either by the Tower controller (for departures), or the ARTCC controller (for descents and transits). The services are delivered by radio from radar data. They typically encompass controlling aircraft during standard approach (STAR) and standard departures (SID). TRACON frequencies are mentioned on instrument plates as Approach (APP CON) and Departure (DEP CON), e.g. for Las Vegas (source):

Typical service provided to a descending aircraft (source):

Typically, arrival traffic is handed off from the ARTCC to the TRACON
air space at designated points, called feeder gates, about 30n.mi.
from the airport and 10,000 to 15,000ft above ground level. Some
airports utilize as many as four or five such gates or corner posts
which approximately form a rectangle with the airport at the center
[...]   Both feeder and final controllers attempt to keep aircraft on
a fastest or shortest path to the runway. They often utilize speed
changes, altitude changes, and path stretching to ensure proper
spacing.

Similarly, climbing aircraft are directed via preferential departure routes towards the en-route airway, before being handed to Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC).
Controllers mostly use the Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) or the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) systems to track aircraft:

Philadelphia TRACON (source)
As emphasized by @TomMcW in his comment, smaller airfields don't have an associated TRACON, the approaches and departures are in this case directly managed by controllers at the airfield tower.

Where are TRACON usually located?
TRACON premises by themselves can be located anywhere. Controllers work on radar screens, in the half-light, they don't have a view of the outdoor. Basement rooms are usual.

Potomac consolidated TRACON, operation room (source)
Depending on the country they may be located close to major airports, within the area they control, preferably co-located with towers.
TRACON controlled areas are located around major airports.

In the US: FAA - Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities
In Europe (TCC): See Can multiple airfields be in the same airspace?

From FAA (where are TRACONs located?)

Some TRACONs are located on airport property and some are not, but
their locations have no effect on TRACON controllers’ ability to
control aircraft, or on the capacity or capabilities of any airport.
This is because TRACON controllers rely on radar displays and radio to
separate aircraft, unlike tower controllers who control landings and
takeoffs visually. In fact, TRACONs do not have windows — a darker
environment makes it easier for controllers to see the radar screens.

The article mentions cases like N90 TRACON: It controls traffic from/to major airports in NY area (La Guardia, JFK, Newark Liberty), but is located on Long Island, a location remote from these airports.
FAA arguments for tower and TRACON co-location include savings and easier 24/7 uninterrupted operations.

What is the difference between TRACON, En Route and Tower?
Taking the US ATC system only into account for this discussion. The difference should have been clarified above: Towers handle airport operations, ARTCCs/En-route handle cruise phase, and TRACONs handle climbing and descending aircraft, as well as aircraft transiting between ARTCCs in their controlled areas. Here are some details about Towers and ARTCCs.
1/ Airport operations are controlled by controllers in the tower. They need a view on the runways and other location of the airport.

Tower at Nice / Côte d'Azur airport (LFMN)
Radar techniques are used for tracking aircraft on the ground (ASDE-X) and informations from short range radars can feed various displays, of which the D/BRITE (Digital Bright Radar Indicator Tower Equipment), and more modern Barco.
Takeoff and landing clearances are delivered after visual check of the runway status.
From Nasa's page:

Control towers were established to provide for a safe, orderly, and
expeditious flow of air traffic at an airport and in its vicinity.
There are four major controller classifications at control towers:

Flight Data Controller
Clearance Delivery Controller
Ground Controller
Local Controller.

Inside an air traffic control tower (source)

2/ Enroute traffic is controlled by Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC)

Typical sector radar team (source)
From Nasa's page:

ARTCCs, usually referred to as "Centers," are established primarily to
provide Air Traffic Service to aircraft operating on IFR flight plans
within the controlled airspace, and principally during the en route
phase of flight.
There are 21 Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) in the United
States.

US ARTCC boundaries (source)

Any aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) within the
confines of an ARTCC's airspace is controlled by air traffic
controllers at the Center. This includes all sorts of different types
of aircraft: privately owned single engine aircraft, commuter
airlines, military jets and commercial airlines.

ARTCC manages flights between TRACON airspaces, while they are cruising at high altitude.
(You can listen to ARTCC traffic at LiveATC.net)

Read more:

Air traffic control
New York TRACON
TRACON 2012, the game
Co-Located TRACONS (FAA)
ATC Positions and Functions (VATUSA, ATC simulation)

I was half way through an answer for this but yours is so thorough I don't need to finish it. +1. Only thing I might add is that TRACON facilities are around busy airspace. Smaller airports in the US have approach and departure controllers at the ATCT. I was surprised that the class B airport where I live (MCI) doesn't have a TRACON even though there's an ARTCC in town.

"A TRACON is the name in the US for what is also known in other countries as the Terminal Control Center, the control in charge of operations close to one or more large airports (but not on the airports themselves)." - Are TRACONs in the US sometimes located on the airports themselves? I was once inside the Grand Rapids ATC tower, and there was an ATC room directly below the "room with the big windows". My understanding was that the upper room was Grand Rapids Tower and the lower room was TRACON (Grand Rapids Approach and Grand Rapids Departure).

@TannerSwett: I don't know for Grand Rapids, but that's the idea, it's usual. For LFPG (De Gaulle), see fig 73 page 107 of this document in French. The room is below one of the towers. When I write "not on the airports themselves" I mean TRACON don't control aircraft on the airports, but they can be (and usually are) located at one major airport.

Ah, I see. I wasn't paying attention when I read the sentence; I thought it was saying that the facilities themselves are "not on the airports themselves", but now I see that I was reading it wrong.

How is a TRACON depicted for an airport on sectional charts?

@TheStoryCoder: The TRACON service is reachable thru the allocated frequency. The frequency may be different between sectors / airports / runways and whether the aircraft is climbing or descending, and cannot be shown on sectional charts. Instead it appears on the relevant IFR plate (e.g. on SID and STAR they appear respectively as "DEP CON" and "APP CON", examples; the location of the facility itself is irrelevant to navigation and not shown).

@TerranSwett Most TRACONs are “up/down” facilities, which means they are in the same building as a tower and may even share staff. Larger ones will be in their own building but still usually on airport property. This contrasts with ARTCCs, which tend to be miles away from any airport.

@TomMcW: the TRACON is the facility or portion of the facility responsible for radar guidance, like StephenS said; an up/down like MCI contains both a tower and a TRACON. And general note: "TRACON" is the FAA term for this type of facility. The military calls it a "RAPCON," "RATCF," or "ARAC" (USA), but in all cases the services provided are the same.

@TheStoryCoder no, see my answer here for the best you're likely to get.

I've been a Professional Airway System Specialist for 29 years. Some of the information in the above article is either misleading or downright incorrect.
Air Traffic Control Towers large enough to require a nearby or co-located TRACON include Digital BRITE Radar displays overhead in the towers.
In my day they were fed by Automated Radar IIA and IIIA systems that were in turn fed by short range (60 mile radars).
Today the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) has replaced the ARTS systems but STARS Automated Radar is still either microwaved to the larger towers or sent via advanced telecommunications.
That information IS NOT used for ground separation it is used by tower controllers to control traffic IN THE AIR that they cannot see which is the majority of the traffic that they control.

Welcome! With your experience, I'm sure you'll be able to help out with a lot of good answers!! Your answer would probably be better suited as comments on the specific answers, but you don't have the rep to do that yet. Could you please [edit] your answer to include specific quotes from the other answers that you believe to be incorrect? Someone will help you with the formatting if it doesn't come out all that well at first. Also, take a couple of minutes to take the [tour] and read the [help] to get the feel for how things work at [Aviation.se] since it's a bit different than other forums.

Following is the statement I found to be incorrect:

I think your Enter key finger got a little trigger happy, care to try again?  :) Also, statements like "the first answer" or "the answer above" are totally irrelevant at any of the StackExchange sites - There are 3 different ways of sorting answers and each user can choose his own way, and, if you and I both select "votes" that will still change over time as different answers are voted on. Best to at least reference the answer's author.

I encourage you to make a complementary answer with details. DBRITE (Digital Bright Radar Indicator Tower Equipment) are the displays for data/images coming from the STARS/ARTS systems (example).

First off, there needs to be a distinction between the IFR facility and the Tower. Control towers in the US control runways and surface movement areas, they do not "control" airspace. They do sequence aircraft in the local traffic area but that is a topic for another discussion. TRACONS/RAPCONS are IFR facilities and can issue IFR routes/clearances in the air.
TRACONS typically control airspace around busy airports from the ground up to 15,000ft and about 30 miles around including all airports therein. ARTCC's (Centers or Area control Facilities) cover EVERYTHING else. They provide IFR service from the surface up to the top of controlled airspace in the vast majority of the continental US. There are plenty of smallish airports (especially out west) that have towers without an overlying TRACON. In those areas, the ARTCC is the next layer providing arrival/departure separation, sometimes without radar.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
From an ATC perspective, what is an "arrival gate"?
I have seen reference to ATC assigned "arrival gates".
As a passenger, an "arrival gate" is something like B12 or D37, but I'm quite certain that's not what this is referring to.
From an ATC perspective, what is a flight's "arrival gate"?

Different ATC facilities need a standardized way to manage handoff of traffic between them and make sure traffic headed in different directions doesn't conflict at the border, especially at the interface between Approach/Departure and Center where traffic is climbing or descending and therefore can't be separated by cruise altitude like en route traffic can.
The standard way this is done in the US is to establish "gates", which are fixes/waypoints on the airspace control boundary, and each is designated for arrivals (descending) or for departures (climbing).  Note that this boundary is not related to airspace class and is not charted, though you can often deduce where it is based on traffic patterns and SIDs/STARs.
Here is a conceptual diagram of the ATC gates for an airport in "south flow", meaning aircraft use the runways in the southerly direction:

Source: here
The black crosses in the corners are the arrival gates, and the white crosses on the sides are the departure gates.  When the airport is in north flow, the diagram is flipped vertically.  For airports that are oriented east-west, the diagram will be rotated 90 degrees for east or west flow.  Most traffic will use a runway on the same side as its arrival gate, but there are crossover paths for when Approach needs to rebalance traffic or some gates are closed due to severe weather.
When a gate is "open", there is an agreed maximum rate or minimum spacing that the sending facility can send aircraft through it, hence the term "metering fix" on the diagram legend.  If the sending facility exceeds this rate, the receiving facility may "close the gate" until they can sort out the resulting mess, which means the sending facility will have to slow down, reroute or hold traffic until the gate reopens.  Nobody wants that.

I'm not sure "metering fix" is the same thing as "approach gate". The FAA's definition says that an approach gate is located on the final approach course and one mile outside the FAF, which doesn't seem to match your diagram. Having said that, I'm sure ATC does use certain fixes further from the airport to manage inbound aircraft before directing them to intercept final outside a specific gate. Similar function but different distance from the airport, I guess.

@Pondlife A STAR has an “arrival gate”; an IAP has an “approach gate”.

I'm not sure I follow. Aircraft don't unload passengers and cargo at one gate, then get pushed to another gate for onboarding new passengers and cargo. It's done all at the same gate. Having separate departure and arrival gates doesn't seem to jive with what you see at an airport, for instance.

@SnakeDoc This has nothing to do with pax/cargo or terminals. These “gates” are fixes in the air.

Oh I see now, the entry position into the holding pattern/final approach. I think I interpreted OP's question as being about the actual parking locations on the ground.

In that context I believe it actually refers to the "approach gate". This is from the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook, Chapter 4:

The approach gate is an imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for
vectoring aircraft to the final approach course. The gate is
established along the final approach course one mile from the FAF on
the side away from the airport and is no closer than 5 NM from the
landing threshold.
[...]
When vectoring aircraft to the final approach course,
controllers are required to ensure the intercept is at least 2 NM
outside the approach gate

You can get more details from the ATC side in the ATC orders 5-9-1.

In fact this does not answer the question. The question was about arrival gates, which are the handover points between Radar and Arrival. In most cases the arrival gates are also the begin of a STAR or transition

I wrote the words he was asking about, so I can assure you that it had nothing to do with approach gates.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is a "GPS required" ILS (or other navaid-based) approach considered a "GPS approach" for alternate planning's sake when TSO-C129/196 gear is in use?
If you have TSO-C129/TSO-C196 GPS gear (vs TSO-C145/146 WAAS/SBAS gear), you either have to have a non-GPS approach at your destination, or a non-GPS approach at your alternate.  If your choices are either conventional approaches or GPS-only approaches, this is simple to understand.
However, some approaches have arisen that are hybrid approaches -- combining GPS intermediate guidance with a ground based navaid (usually an ILS) for the final approach course guidance.  An example of this can be found at Jackson Hole, WY, where the KJAC ILS Z or LOC/DME RWY 19 approach is listed as "GPS REQUIRED" on the approach plate due to the use of GPS to set up a curved feeder leg onto the ILS final, bypassing some terrain to the north of the airport and allowing much lower minimums as a result.
Are these "hybrid" approaches considered the same as a GPS-only approach for alternate planning if you are TSO-C129/TSO-C196 equipped?  Or are they considered as conventional approaches for alternate planning purposes?

For this alternate planning requirement, GPS can not be required for any part of the non-GPS approach. This includes using GPS as a substitute for out of service equipment.(eg an ILS near me has a NOTAM that DME or GPS is required, because a VOR used for the missed will be down for maintenance. This would count as a GPS approach.) This in in AC90-108.


text:
Can European (or more generally, non-US) airspace users airfile IFR flight plans?
In the US, there are two ways to airfile an IFR flight plan:

Call Flight Service on the radio via the nearest FSS RCO and ask them to file the plan
Ask the ATC entity you're talking to for a "pop up" IFR clearance

Is there any equivalent to either function in European (SES) airspace?  Or is Europe a continent where airfiling IFR flight plans is not possible?  (Bonus points if there's some sort of ICAO standard way of handling airfiling.)

Sure you can. This is from ICAO Doc 4444:

4.4.2.2.1    A flight plan to be submitted during flight should normally be transmitted to the ATS unit in charge of the FIR, control area, advisory area or advisory route in or on which the aircraft is flying, or in or through which the aircraft wishes to fly or to the aeronautical telecommunication station serving the air traffic services unit concerned. When this is not practicable, it should be transmitted to another ATS unit or aeronautical telecommunication station for retransmission as required to the appropriate air traffic services unit.
4.4.2.2.2    Where relevant, such as in respect of ATC units serving high- or medium-density airspace, the appropriate ATS authority should prescribe conditions and/or limitations with respect to the submission of flight plans during flight to ATC units.

And this is from SERA (Standardized European Rules of the Air):

SERA.4001(c) A flight plan shall be submitted, before departure, to an air traffic services reporting office or, during flight, transmitted to the appropriate air traffic services unit or air-ground control radio station, unless arrangements have been made for submission of repetitive flight plans.

Correct! And some phraseo: "DEXPL, request IFR pickup to XYZ via ABC, FL70"

Never heard "IFR pickup". Perhaps a phrase specific to Germany? I would simply expect to a pilot to request an IFR clearance and pass any relevant flightplan changes.

Non-US, but not European, I have done "pop-up" IFR clearances in Canada rather frequently.  In Mexico I have done them, but not often. Sometimes, it is simply contact with the approach facility, or tower if in a remote region, and obtaining an IFR clearance for an approach.  I cannot recall any problems except bad weather (grin).
In the US, and IFR pickup is normally just filed with a navaid or fix as the departure point, with a remark noting where you departed from.
At least regionally, pop-ups are normally within one or perhaps two adjacent approach facilities.  Any further, and it becomes an air-file.  If busy, they really appreciate filing with FSS.  If not busy they will sometimes take all the data on approach frequency. On rare occasions, they move you to an alternate approach frequency sometimes used for ASR, emergencies, and certain agency operations.


text:
When do you contact ATC when departing from a non-towered airport into class B controlled airspace?
When do you contact ATC when departing from a non-towered airport into class B controlled airspace?
This is the situation where the uncontrolled airport sits under the Class B shelf.

I'm not completely sure what you're asking: if you're under the class B shelf then you aren't departing into class B; you're departing into whatever the airspace is at that particular airport. Do you have an example of an uncontrolled airport that's actually in class B?

I'm assuming you're VFR.
You contact ATC before you enter the Class B air space.
If necessary, you orbit outside, but you don't enter until after you hear the magic phrase "<your callsign>, cleared into the Class Bravo airspace" from ATC.
If it's a busy time and/or the weather is poor, you may NOT get that clearance.
See this blog for a more detailed explanation.
If you're flying IFR, the answer is the same except you would be in contact with ATC either before or right after take off. The Class B becomes more or less moot - they handle it for you.

I just want to note the reference for this rule - it's 14 CFR 91.131.
If the nontowered satellite airport is close to the the primary airport that the TRACON airspace serves, I'd try to call TRACON up on the ground before departing.
Another option is staying under the bravo shelf once in the air and then asking for the bravo clearance.
If that doesn't work, you could also try to file an IFR flight plan and get your clearance on the ground from FSS on the radio or via a phone call. Once you get into the air and into the bravo, cancel the IFR flight plan.


text:
How should I operate within the dashed magenta lines next to Class D airspace?

I am unsure of how to operate within this area (red dashed line) without connection to ATC.  It appears to come off of class D airspace.
Can anyone provide an explanation of what this area is and how to operate within it?

Related -- https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/92260/34686 -- and see first comment under answer.

Its an area of Class-E airspace used for Instrument Approach Procedures.
From The Pilot Handbook, Chapter 14, Airspace:

Class D airspace is generally airspace from the surface to
  2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL)
  surrounding those airports that have an operational control
  tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is
  individually tailored and when instrument procedures are
  published, the airspace is normally designed to contain the
  procedures. Arrival extensions for instrument approach
  procedures (IAPs) may be Class D or Class E airspace. Unless
  otherwise authorized, each aircraft must establish two-way
  radio communications with the ATC facility providing air
  traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter
  maintain those communications while in the airspace.

(Emphasis Mine)
Also from that handbook, the procedures for operating in Class-E:

If the airspace is not Class A, B, C, or D, and is controlled
  airspace, then it is Class E airspace. Class E airspace extends
  upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated
  as a surface area, the airspace is configured to contain all
  instrument procedures. Also in this class are federal airways,
  airspace beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet above ground
  level (AGL) used to transition to and from the terminal or
  en route environment, and en route domestic and offshore
  airspace areas designated below 18,000 feet MSL. Unless
  designated at a lower altitude, Class E airspace begins at
  14,500 MSL over the United States, including that airspace
  overlying the waters within 12 NM of the coast of the 48
  contiguous states and Alaska, up to but not including 18,000
  feet MSL, and the airspace above FL 600.

So basically class-E rules apply, but be aware you are operating in an Instrument Approach Procedure area.

Ah ha.  Makes sense now. Thanks!

The area inside those lines is class E from the surface.

The area in that dashed magenta line is called an "extension".  It is Class E airspace that goes all the way down to the surface.
Related: In the US, how does the distinction between E2 and E3/E4 airspace affect pilots?.  The point being that there is some ambiguity whether or not certain rules apply within the airspace you are talking about here, which is classed as "E4" airspace. For example-- may a Special VFR clearance be authorized for this airspace, to permit operations with reduced cloud clearance and visibility requirements?  You will get different answers from different sources.  In actual practice the answer is usually "yes", but in some locations you'll find the opposite to be true.  (See the above link for much more.)
One thing that is certain, is that from a VFR standpoint, the main point of that surface-level Class E "extension" is to bring Class E visibility and cloud clearance requirements all the way down to the surface, to better protect the airspace along instrument approaches.  You don't need to talk to anyone to fly there, as long as you can observe the required visibility and cloud clearance requirements.  The most conservative interpretation of the regulations, from a safety standpoint, is that you also may not fly below a cloud ceiling that is lower than 1000' AGL in that area (see FAR 91.155(c)) without a Special VFR clearance.
From an IFR standpoint, it is controlled airspace, extending all the way down to ground level, that protects the instrument approaches.

authors: Σταματης Αλεξόπουλος


text:
What advantage(s) are there for the HondaJet's engine mount position?
The HondaJet has over wing mounted engines as can be seen here:

Image from LuxuryLaunches.com
The advantages v drawbacks of the over wing mount have been discussed here and here. The over wing mount on the HondaJet could take advantage of the Coandă effect, except that they're not in front of the wing, as can be seen (above), but more clearly here:

Sourced from HondaJet.com themselves.
In fact, the placement looks like the typical rear fuselage mount, except they're not mounted to the fuselage. The rear fuselage mount is quite common in the small private/luxury jet market:

Gulfstream G550 hosted by Gulfstream

Learjet 45 image from Aviation-Times.aero
This seems to combine all the disadvantages of an over wing mount with the disadvantages of a rear fuselage mount, and neither of those positions seem to have a huge amount of advantages.
What are the advantages of a high, over/behind wing engine mounting position as seen in the HondaJet?

Probably the reasons are similiar to the reasons which lead to the same mounting on the VFW-Fokker 614.

This arrangement was used to avoid the structural weight penalties of rear mounted engines and the potential ingestion problems of engines mounted under the wings. This allowed a short and sturdy undercarriage, specially suited for operations from poorly prepared runways.

// Update
The space in the cabin should be the actual reason in this case.

“I had the idea around 1996,” says Fujino. “The cost of a business jet is very high. To reduce the cost, you have to reduce the size of the aircraft, but then you sacrifice comfort. I wanted to make the aircraft smaller, but not sacrifice the cabin.” Most business jets have the engines mounted on the rear
  fuselage, and moving the structure and systems to support the engines out of the fuselage would maximise space inside the cabin without increasing the size of the aircraft, he believed.

As always, there are pro and cons:

The problem with an overwing engine is
  that interference between the nacelle and
  wing can accelerate the airflow and cause
  a strong shockwave, reducing the drag
  rise Mach number – the airspeed at which
  shockwaves form and drag begins to rise
  rapidly. Fujino says computational analysis
  and windtunnel testing enabled Honda to
  find a “sweet spot”, an overwing engine
  location that minimises the shockwave.
  The result, he says, is a 5% better lift-to-
  drag ratio – aerodynamic efficiency – in the
  cruise than a rear-engined aircraft.

Peter Kämpf's answer specifically mentions the 614, but, the engines don't seem to be nearly as far behind the wings as they do on the HondaJet. The reasoning of that point, though, seems valid. However, the second part of your answer seems to nail it.

Another advantage: With the engines on the wing instead of being mounted directly to the fuselage, not as much noise and vibration is transmitted to the interior of the cabin.
Mounting them above rather than below the wings allows for a much shorter landing gear. That's important to small business jets, where the passengers typically board from a general aviation area, using the aircraft's stairs built into the cabin door, rather than the enclosed ramp that commercial airliners use.
Closer to the ground, easier to get into.
Imagine getting into a 747 or A380 by climbing stairs out in the open, and you can visualize why shorter stairs are desirable.

I think HondaJet engine is a compromise of trying to squeeze two jets on a small aircraft.
Putting engine under the wing means that the aircraft becomes too tall.A business jet can't be so high that it requires external ladders/stairs for entry - that would preclude landing at many small airports. If you look at Embraer Phenom or Cessna Citation, they both put engine on the tail. The doors on both open downwards and have built in stairs.
You could think of putting the Jets close to the fuselage - similar to a turboprop - but then the problem is that  unlike a propellor plane the exhaust is too hot.
Then you can think of putting the engines on the tail (like every other competitor). That is a reasonable arrangement, but for stability reasons you want to have most of your weight ahead of the mid-point. That way if you are overloaded (or if your engine fails) the nose points down. With all the weight at the back, in case of emergencies the engine ends up pointing up. Not the safest arrangement. There is also the problem of getting all the fuel from the wing to the tail.
So Honda found yet another arrangement by putting the engine on a couple of stilts. This is OK, but still has the problem that if an engine fails the nose ends up pointing up instead of down. I bet they are thinking that the Honda Engine never fails.

Welcome to aviation.SE! Answers that can site facts, preferably with sources, tend to be received much better here than answers which are "I think..." opinions.

Honda may think their engines never fail, but every regulatory agency in the world will require that they prove the plane can continue a takeoff run and maintain controlled flight with one engine shut down.

One major advantage of the engine mount on the wing as opposed to the empanada One major advantage to the engine mount on the wing as opposed to the  Tailcone of the aircraft was mentioned in an air and space article written by Bill Sweetman, when called How The 747 Got Its Hump. In the article, he talks about mounting an engine on the wing of an aircraft indirectly  reduces the bending moment on the spars and in the wingbox during flight  due to the weight of the engines helping to counteract the bending moment generated by lift in the structural components. As such there's a weight saving since these parts can be made thinner but still be able to take the loads needed.

The reduction in bending moment is also addressed in point 2.2 of Radu094's answer to the question I referenced in the 2nd here link in my original question. Your answer also doesn't address the specifics of mounting the engine above the wing as opposed to below it, which was my specific question.

Did you write this while hungry?


text:
How does passenger unloading order prevent plane tipping?
This answer to the question about an emergency landing very early in a trans-continental flight indicated that the fuel in the aft auxiliary tanks could cause the plane to tip on its tail if the passengers weren't unloaded carefully. The cabin crew seems to have kept everyone calm and orderly, and they deplaned with no further incident.
My question is how did the orderly disembarkation prevent the plane from tipping?
These are the thoughts that ran through my head as I read the story:

Were the pilots busy moving fuel out of those aft tanks while the pax were deplaning?

If so would they have started the rebalancing as soon as the firefighters cleared the plane to move?
Would that have taken the hour it took to get the plane to a gate for them to shift all the fuel?

What else would be involved?
If the fuel in the tail would cause the plane to tip, unloading the pax slowly would still leave it with an aft CG, and it would still tip once the critical number of people were off.

More likely they unloaded passengers starting with the rear rows. In a normal disembarcation the people at the front leave first.

Apparently, there have been a number of incidents with 'tail tipping' in case of Boeing 737-900s and 900ERs. In these situations, the plane 'tipping' on its tail can be prevented by two methods:

Unloading the passengers starting from rear to front.
Unloading the (baggage from) aft cargo hold before passengers were allowed off the aircraft.

There is also some indication that the 737-900s are loaded in the front rows (1-17) first followed by aft rows, while the unloading takes place in the opposite way.

So, if the pax and bags are removed from rear to front, that should retain enough balance to prevent a tip?

@FreeMan Atleast in this case, it appears so. Airlines seem to follow that procedure.

Generally Planes are unloaded from the front to the back. In this case its likely they unloaded the aft passengers first to keep the CG forward biased. You are also assuming that they had some place to pump the fuel from the aft tanks. Since the plane diverted from Newark to Buffalo (a short hop relatively speaking) its likely the main tanks did not have enough space to allow pumping the aft tank into the mains. You would need to look over fuel burn charts for the plane to figure that out number for number someone here may have those figures for you.

Yes, the lack of space for fuel to be pumped was another point I'd considered, but failed to put in my question.


text:
How do I calculate where a wing is most likely to break?
I want to make a delta wing out of carbon fiber, but I do not know how many carbon fiber layers would be needed to prevent the wing from breaking due to shear stress. What would be the calculations and equations needed to find this out; which point is most likely to break? Sorry this question is devoid of details, I am quite lost when it comes to this.

Where do you imagine the shear stress will be?

I think this is way too broad. A good answer to this question would basically teach you a course in structural mechanics and maybe a course on composite materials. That's a few hundred hours of study load. You could try some textbooks, e.g., Mallick: Fiber Reinforced Composites (no affiliation, just a book I happen to own).

Is this wing unique in shape and size? If so you might be able to duplicate the work others have already done. If not, build the wing with one layer of CF, then test to failure. Keep adding layers of CF until you achieve the strength you need.

Image source: modified from chegg.com. Picture earlier used in this answer
What is required is dimensioning the load, then the material placement and thickness.

The load.
In a cantilever wing, the load in flight is at the wing root, caused by the lift. So the being moment upwards is the integrated lift distribution from wing tip to root, dimensioned for the highest load factor, in both an upwards and a downward direction (inverted flight). This wiki contains some regulation limits:

For transport category airplanes, from −1 to +2.5 (or up to +3.8 depending on design takeoff weight)[5]
For normal category and commuter category airplanes, from −1.52 to +3.8[6]
For utility category airplanes, from −1.76 to +4.4[6]
For acrobatic category airplanes, from −3.0 to +6.0[6]

The complete integrated lift load must be compensated for by a shear load downwards at the wing root.
There is a twisting load as well, probably not an ultimate load in a low aspect ratio delta wing.

Material placement.
As can be seen in the pic, the wing bending moment is counteracted by a compression load in the upper skin and a tension load in the lower skin. The wing skins would need to be placed a fair bit apart, without causing strife with the aerodynamicists. A support structure that keeps the skins apart is a must, depending on the size of your craft could even be a honeycomb. Reduced wing thickness towards the tip is a good idea to save weight.

Carbon fibre layers.
As many as required to absorb the loads found from points 1. and 2., dimensioned for skin buckling.

I want to make an airplane out of paper.  The delta is the best choice, one of the strongest and easiest airfoil shapes to make.  Very good for low wing loading, does not lift as well as a straight wing.  Good stall characteristics.
I want to make a suspension bridge out of carbon fibre.  Good for cables, but too flexible to keep the bridge from swaying.
You need to combine the carbon fiber with a stiff, but light material, such as balsa!.  Carbon fibre "sandwiches" can be had at your local hobby shop and are amazingly strong.
If in doubt, build some models and analyze the effect of extreme loading (with weights), then do your delta wing scale- up.  Other platforms may be tried as well.


text:
Can I get an FAA instrument rating if I hold a private certificate based on a foreign license?
I have an EASA PPL/Medical with VFR privileges only. I have an FAA license which is based upon the EASA license. I’ve lived in the US for 5 years and would like to obtain an IR. Can I get an FAA IR with FAA certificate being based on a foreign license?

Short answer: yes. I got an FAA IR while holding a foreign-based private license and medical (South African in my case).
The information in this question might be helpful too.

Yes, You will need to take the FAA's IRA knowledge test and pass the instrument practical test (after receiving the required training).
Your FAA Private Pilot (Restricted certificate) will list Instrument-Airplane (US Test Passed)

this will authorize you with all the same instrument privileges as a standard FAA certificate and instrument rating. Additionally, if you later pass the FAA Private/Commercial pilot practical test, the Instrument rating will transfer to your FAA Standard Private/Commercial certificate.

Reference: 8900.1 Volume 5, Section 2, Chapter 14

Private Pilot Certificate. When a private pilot certificate is
issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license and the foreign pilot
license has instrument rating/privileges, in order for that person to
receive instrument privileges on the U.S. pilot certificate, the
person must pass either the IFP knowledge test or the standard
instrument rating (i.e., Instrument—Airplane, Instrument—Helicopter,
or Instrument—Powered-Lift) knowledge test, and the standard
instrument rating practical test (refer to § 61.65).
NOTE: If the applicant’s U.S. pilot certificate has not been issued with    instrument privileges, then the issuing evaluator will
advise the applicant that they may not serve as a required pilot
crewmember of a U.S.-registered aircraft under IFR when exercising the
privileges of that U.S. pilot certificate. When the applicant passes
the IFP knowledge test, instrument privileges will be granted on the
U.S. pilot certificate. Passage of the IFP knowledge test does not
qualify a person for the notation “U.S. TEST PASSED” for the
instrument rating.

U.S. Test Passed Notation. To qualify for the notation “U.S. TEST
PASSED” for the addition of an aircraft or instrument rating to a U.S.
pilot certificate, the person must accomplish the appropriate
aeronautical experience, pass the knowledge test (if applicable), and
pass the practical test as required under part 61. Each rating added
to the temporary U.S. pilot certificate will have the notation “U.S.
TEST PASSED” following the rating to which the notation applies. The
required aeronautical experience must be shown on FAA Form 8710-1,
Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application. Do not indicate “U.S.
TEST PASSED” on the temporary pilot certificate if only the IFP
knowledge test was passed.

Additionally, if you are not a US Citizen you will need to complete the TSA approval before receiving the training for the instrument rating. TSA FSTP website


text:
Can I (FAA CPL / Korea CFI holder) log instructor time in the US?
I am a CFI in Korea, and I have FAA CPL. Can I log my logbook as instructor time? (FAR 61.41)

Welcome to aviation.SE! Are you asking if you can give instruction in the US using your Korean CFI certificate?

@Pondlife Actually I just want to log instructor times when I rent airplane.


text:
What endorsements does a student pilot need to practice maneuvers solo with no limitations on distance from the airport?
A question regarding the purpose of 61.93(a) and the distance limitations on a student pilot solo'ing in the local practice area.
Scenario:
A CFI trains a student in accordance with 61.87. They endorse a student pilot with the endorsements required in 61.87(c)(1)(2) as well as 61.87(n). The student solo's out to the local practice area and performs several maneuvers, but while doing so, goes 30nm from the airport. They return back and land at their home airport.
Did the student pilot violate 61.93(a)(1)(i), which says

Conducting a solo cross-country flight, or any flight greater than 25
nautical miles from the airport from where the flight originated

If this would be a violation, what exact requirements are necessary to meet for the student to just perform maneuvers in a practice area without a distance limitation (i.e. 25nm)? 61.93(a)(1) just says, "must meet the requirements of this section".

Welcome to aviation.SE! I'm not totally sure what you're asking. As you noted, 61.93(a)(1) says "a student pilot must meet the requirements of this section" for solo cross countries or solo flights >25nm, and the rest of 61.93 lists those requirements. I'm not sure what piece of information is missing?

My confusion primary stems from the fact that 61.93 does not mention >25nm again, it only references "cross-country flight" (e.g. 61.93c). Are you actually performing a cross-country flight is you're just 26nm from the departure airport? I under the assumption that cross-country flights required another landing...

I could be reading too deeply into it, and "missing the forest through the trees". But it does not seem clear what requirements must be met to putz around +25 nm the departure airport. Is it 61.93 (b), (c), (d), or (e)? All the above? Just (c)? Just (d)? They all seem to address cross-country flights where a landing takes place... but none of them reiterate anything with flying +25 nm away and never landing.

Maybe get a 25/50 mile endorsement to another airport which was itself within 25 miles of the practice area, and just do a touch-and-go each way? More landing practice for a student never hurts...

For more gray areas around cross country flights (not pertaining directly to your question) see https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/55825/34686 and the many questions that show up on the "related" sidebar.  (Sorry, question was poorly written, I should do an edit one of these days... )

In my opinion, I think the wording of 61.93(a)(i) is pretty clear.  Anytime a student pilot flies more than 25 NM from their home airfield they will need an endorsement.
I don't know where you are based at.  At my home airfield, all the practice areas are within the 25 NM radius of the airfield.
If a student pilot gets a little outside of the 25NM radius then I would tend to believe they have violated the wording of the regulations.  If the student pilot is performing maneuvers in the practice area and accidentally exceeds that radius I don't believe they violated the intent of the regulation but the student pilot should be cautioned to stay within the defined radius.
This is at the heart of FAA's compliance philosophy.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/initiatives/cp/CP_Brochure.pdf


text:
What is the relationship between STARs, IAPs, and feeder routes?
From what I understood, if I want to do some approach procedure, I need to get to the waypoints marked at the STAR chart, and then I go to the IAF marked at the IAP chart through the feeder route. After reaches to IAF, I can make the approach as published.
Is the relationship between STAR, IAP, and feeder route correct?

Welcome to AviationStackExchange. It would be helpful if you list the airport, arrival, and approach you intend to use. It will help others in answering the question for your specific situation.

Definitions
From the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary, an instrument approach procedure (IAP) is:

A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually.

A feeder route is:

A route depicted on instrument approach procedure charts to designate routes for aircraft to proceed from the en route structure to the initial approach fix (IAF).

A standard terminal arrival (STAR) is:

A preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) air traffic control arrival procedure published for pilot use in graphic and/or textual form. STARs provide transition from the en route structure to an outer fix or an instrument approach fix/arrival waypoint in the terminal area.

So you can see that a STAR and a feeder route serve the same general function: to allow IFR aircraft to transition from the en route structure (meaning Federal airways, the Victor, Tango, J- and Q-routes) to the beginning of an instrument approach procedure. The major difference is that STARs are published for busier airports to make things easier and more predictable from ATC's point of view; a STAR can contain any number of waypoints/fixes and, more importantly, can have altitude and speed restrictions pre-published at those fixes so ATC doesn't have to issue them to each individual arrival.
Example
Let's look at the ILS Runway 11 approach into Portland International Jetport (PWM). We can see that there are three Initial Approach Fixes: Kennebunk VOR/DME, BUXTO intersection, and PARSO intersection. If you can somehow navigate to any one of those three fixes, you can follow the approach procedure to safely get down to the ground (or at least pretty close to the ground).

Now say, for example, you're navigating via V93 from the southwest. When you reach CON you could continue to follow V93 to ENE and start the published approach by flying on the ENE030 radial to BUXTO and performing the hold-in-lieu-of-procedure-turn. But that takes you rather out of your way, so if you could you'd rather start the approach at PARSO and avoid having to perform a procedure turn.
Well, PARSO is on V3, so you could fly CON.V93.SATAN.V3.PARSO. But that still isn't the most direct route.
Happily for you there's a published feeder route starting from CON! When you arrive at the VOR/DME you leave the airways and navigate on the CON067 radial directly to PARSO. Hooray!

Enroute L-32 IFR chart

This plan might work if you were flying a Skyhawk at 5000 feet. But say you're flying Southwest 1982 from Baltimore, descending out of the flight levels at 250+ knots. ATC would rather have you flying a certain procedure that's the same as all the other jets coming in to Portland, and your dispatcher knows this—so they've filed for, and ATC has cleared you via, the SCOGS THREE arrival.

Some time before you reach SAACO, and probably long before then, ATC will tell you to expect Runway 11. Therefore, when you reach SAACO, you will make a left turn towards BIDDE and continue following the published route until you reach BUXTO. By this point ATC has cleared you for the ILS Runway 11 Approach, so you transition from the STAR directly onto the instrument approach. Note that you arrive at BUXTO on a track of 081, meaning you only need to make a 29º turn to intercept the localizer (track 110).
A different example
The SCOGS arrival is designed to get you from the enroute structure down to the ground with little-to-no ATC intervention. But at many even busier airports, the arrival will not smoothly transition onto an instrument approach. Instead, you will depart the final fix on a published heading (likely the radar downwind heading) and expect vectors to final from ATC. This allows ATC to give you extended vectors, or shortcuts, as necessary to account for the mixing of different arrival streams. The arrivals into Charlotte/Douglas International are like this, for example the CHSLY FOUR:

If you're landing Runway 23 the arrival has you navigate to JEPHS, the initial fix for the ILS approach for that runway. But if you're landing Runways 18 you come off the arrival on a heading for a left base, while if you're landing Runways 36 you're on a heading for a right downwind.

thanks for your answer :)

To answer your question in a couple of sentences, you do not have to follow or fly a STAR or feeder route in order to fly an IAP. There is no relationship between STARs and feeder routes other than they have similar functions.
The shortest route to an IAP is to vector to the intermediate leg/segment of the approach. That is the section between the Intermediate Fix and the Final Approach Fix.
A STAR will get you from the En Route or cruise segment of your flight to the terminal area where you will transition to the proper direction and altitude for an approach to the airport. The STAR may or may not share a common fix or waypoint with the IAP or feeder route of your choice. It is very unlikely that there will be a common fix. Therefore, you might not have an actual published route from the STAR to the IAP. Where a STAR terminates with the IAF to an IAP is usually a STAR that services a specific airport instead of the general Terminal Area.
A feeder route will give you a way to transition directly from the En Route structure of your route to an IAF of the IAP. The feeder route effectively makes the STAR unnecessary if you fly directly to the starting fix for the feeder route. A feeder route, although published on the IAP, is technically not part of the IAP. It is an alternate way to transition from the final En Route segment to the IAP. It is not a standalone procedure and must always terminate at an IAF.
Either the feeder route or the STAR can be used to get to the IAP. Or, neither can be used if you vector directly to the IAP. And, a Terminal Arrival Area on an IAP effectively eliminates the need for a STAR or a feeder route since you can descend from cruise within the TAA.  In any case, the IAP does not have to start at an IAF. You just have to be established on the IAP prior to the FAF.
That being said, you can combine a STAR with a feeder route to the IAP. But, more than likely, you will be vectored from the last point on the STAR to the most direct route onto the IAP by ATC (if you are getting ATC separation service and routing).


text:
Have an airliner's vertical or horizontal stabilizers or rudders ever broken off?
For a commercial airliner, how strong and reliable are the vertical and horizontal stabilizers and rudders? Can they just break off?

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wclfY0Meruw

On August 12, 1985, a Boeing 747SR operating as Japan Airlines Flight 123 lost its vertical stabilizer and crashed after the aircrew had struggled for 32 minutes to control the stricken airliner. It is the deadliest single-aircraft accident in aviation history; 520 of 524 aboard were killed.

522 fatalities if you count Hiroo Tominaga, a JAL maintenance manager, and Susumu Tajima, an engineer who had inspected and cleared the aircraft as flightworthy, who both died from suicides intended to atone for the incident.

Truly horrific.

They are very strong and reliable. Occurences where they are completely broken off are extremely few and far apart, and in the cases that have happened, usually some kind of abuse took place, such as too harsh control inputs from pilots. In the case of American Airlines flight 587, the control system was also a contributing factor.
Lesser damages, such as cracks and deformations are also quite rare, an example of the more serious kind being the VARA ATR 72 flight during which excessive control inputs damaged the tail assembly.
As anything in airplanes, they are not designed and built to endure everything, as such a design approch would lead to very heavy and/or expensive planes.

So far, we have only read of vertical tails breaking off. But horizontal tails can and did break off, too:
On April 14, 1931, a Messerschmitt M-20a, registered with Lufthansa as D-1928, crashed near Rietschen because one of the horizontal tails broke off in a gust. The M-20 was a single-engine, high-wing monoplane with a capacity for ten passengers and was developed in the late 1920s. The crash resulted in an improved version M-20b with a braced horizontal tail.
As it turned out, the tail design fulfilled the certification criteria of the time, but those did not cover the full range of possible loads on the tail.


text:
Can anyone identify this Autogyro?
I've found similar autogyros on the internet, but not this one. Most autogyros appear to have 2 cockpits and this autogyro only has one.  Although I have matched its angle-tipped wings with other autogyros, I cannot match the configuration of the landing gear.  It appears that each wheel has a vertical strut to the wing and then two bars in a triangular configuration that attach to a center bar about 12" below the fuselage. The only autogyro I've found that appears to possibly be the same is in this video, but the craft's make and model not identified.

  The video is from California but I'm assuming my photo was taken in Wisconsin. I sincerely appreciate your assistance.

You're taking it to the next level :-)

It looks like a Kellet K-3, I believe...
Photo from 'Cierva Autogiros', by Peter Brooks.

You may have identified it. The main reason I concur is the landing gear.  Your photo is the ONLY one I've seen with the same landing gear configuration.  The rest appears to be a match although I'm not quite sure about the verticle stabilizer, rudder, and elevators.  They are difficult to see in my photo but appear to be more rounded. I also cannot discern a windscreen in my photo. Perhaps a slightly different model? I found this K-3 video, but it has an enclosed cockpit and the same tail configuration as your photo.  https://youtu.be/AUVwHGpoasM   Thank you!

I think it is a Kellet K-2 or K-2A. The K-3 had a 5 cylinder engine, the K-2/2A were fitted with a 7 cylinder engine. The aircraft in the question seems to have a 7 cylinder version.

Okay, I'm going to call it and move on even though I'm still in a quandry about the elevators appearing to be round and all other photos I come across show them to be straight across at a bit of an angle.  But the rotor mast and landing gear are only matching a Kellet Autogiro.  Here is a photo that I feel most closely matches.  Unfortunately it doesn't give a model designation, but I'll go with the K-2 version due to engine and the fact that there seems to be very few K-2 photos on the internet.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5934695886/in/photostream/

I thank all contributors for their help. All answers led me to this conclusion.  Very much appreciated.


text:
Could aircraft already do a safe auto-takeoff with todays equipment?
If a plane can already autoland and stay aligned while roll-out by itself, on a CAT-3 ILS-Approach, I asked why there is no auto-takeoff-function on todays autopilots.
Because it should be technically possible and much safer than a hand flown takeoff.

For the technic:
When on the runway, the pilot presses an auto-take-off button. The plane stays aligned by following a normal CAT-3 Localizer. Takeoff-Thrust is made with autothrottle. At Vr, the plane rotates by itself, smoothly,and activates VNAV and LNAV and follows the SID. It is also possible to implement a live wind sensor to dynamically update V-Speeds.
For safety:
In case of an emergency during take-off, a computer take-off would be more safer. The plane knows the speed and runway length. So in case of an emergency, it knows if it's below V1 and also if the available runway length is sufficient for a safe rejected take-off. A computer always has a lower reaction time than humans and they can response faster. A computer can immediately decide wether to take off or reject based on lots of live data. A (rejected) take-off performed by a computer should be times safer.

So, why has an autotake-off-function not been developed yet? And what arguments would speak against an auto-take-off function?
--
There is not an answer to my question here: On modern commercial airliners, how much of the flight could be fully taken care of by the auto pilot? as stated below. I want to know what reasons, if there are any, speak against auto-take-off.

What happens when a baggage train rolls across the runway? Or a deer?

@RonBeyer the same as what happens on landing surely?

@RonBeyer Good Point, but I think pilots should still pay attention to whats happening in front of the plane and should still be able to reject the take-off. Aircraft could also build in a radar which detects obstacles on the runway and reject the take-off.

For all the same reasons pilots don't always use autoland

Possible duplicate of On modern commercial airliners, how much of the flight could be fully taken care of by the auto pilot?

Where comes this belief that computer are always right?

@Peter If all sensors are working properly and the computer is programmed properly and working, then it should be always right.

@Peter they may not always be "right" in the human sense of the word, but they definitely dont make human errors.

When an emergency happens, I'd rather have pilot that's taking over from the computer who's done the procedure a couple hundred times in the last year than one that has watched a computer do it and practiced in a simulator. Computers make human errors all the time. At least until they start programming themselves. I'd rather the computer took over if the pilot fails due to illness or death than the other way round. Call me a Luddite if you like.

There have already been autonomous flights, particularly with military drones, so I would have to answer yes, the technology exists....

@GregTaylor: That's is the point and as a programmer I know that programms are full of errors and situations they can't handle (both can be improved with time and work). And if they program themselves we are either in trouble or in a better world, I can't say which one.

@RonBeyer The same as happens when a baggage cart or deer runs out in front of a self-driving car. Computers aren't perfect but they're usually better than humans at this kind of thing.

@NoahKrasser the computer always gives the correct answer according to its programming, but its programming will NEVER be perfect. There's always things you don't anticipate when creating software, however careful you are, and there are always things missed in testing, however meticulous you are. I've been working in software engineering for over 2 decades, going on 3 if you count my time as a student, and that's the one common.

With some refinement and programming, the technology is easily there, sure; it just needs a few million dollars of design and certification costs for very little benefit.
The main reason we have autolands is because it saves airlines money, by allowing the plane to land safely in minimal visibility instead of diverting to another airport. Aircraft taking off don't have this problem as they can do it in just about zero visibility. If there is no commercial incentive, the reality is it is not going to happen. Only when pilots are considered surplus to requirements will this ability be developed in earnest.
There could be an argument made that it should be done for safety's sake, but I don't buy it. Pilot errors made on the takeoff run, resulting in an accident are incredibly rare. Maybe an auto takeoff could prevent a few tailstrikes but I can't see much more benefit.
Whenever you introduce something new you have to think long and hard about the ramifications of it. There's a whole discussion to be had on how rejected takeoffs would work - generally speaking, you do not want automation doing something that the pilots aren't expecting. It is sometimes better to take an issue into the air than take the risk of a high-speed RTO even under V1, how will the computer judge that when there are few hard and fast rules for it? Do you trust the human programmers to account for every single scenario? Then there's pilot competency, how do they keep their skills up when they could go months without flying the aircraft? If they are in the habit of delegating their decision making to the computer, will they be able to handle the heat in that career-defining moment when the computer fails and it's all on them?

It is perfectly possible- in a very limited sense and has been demonstrated in aircraft like Global Hawk (not a commercial airliner, but it can be done here). The problem is what to do when the unexpected happens.
Technically, it is possible- you can set the TOGA thrust and set rotation speed and let the aircraft do the take-off, but the problem is, that's about it. What will the aircraft do when someone else decides to crash the runway? It has to detect, decide and act appropriately- which increases the system complexity multiple times due to the sensors required (you are already asking for a radar to detect obstacles; the sensor count will go up, not down).
Safety wise, the issue is, the aircraft can react to known problems. What will it do when something that's not in its library occurs? Unlike human pilots, they cannot experiment and compare notes with the other crew and come to a decision. That computers are better and safer than humans is based on the belief that it has access to all data and is programmed to do the correct thing- which is not true always.
Another important thing during takeoff is that the flight crew is in constant communication with the ATC; by far this is the most complex part in the actual take-off barring something unexpected. Computers are not capable of doing it right now. Also, they have to respond to emergencies- both internal (system failure etc) and external (changing ATC instructions, traffic etc).
Also, what will you do when the computer decides to reboot itself in the middle of the takeoff procedure?

What will it do when something that's not in its library occurs? Of course the pilots should still be able to perform a rejected takeoff on their own decision. And if ATC asks to reject the takeoff the pilot can also do it on their own. Also, what will you do when the computer decides to reboot itself in the middle of the takeoff procedure? You can ask this question for all avionics in a modern aircraft like Autopilot, EFIS, etc.

All of your arguments could equally be made against auto land. I don't see the difference.

Unlike human pilots, they cannot experiment and compare notes with the other crew and come to a decision.  I'd like to know what human pilot has the time to compare notes with other pilots in the middle of a takeoff.


text:
What is the difference between a tire deflation and a tire explosion?
In this question, our intrepid former 747 pilot Terry mentioned, in the accepted answer, that:

As I understand it, tires that dangerously overheat will explode before melting, and that's why thermal plugs are used which melt and deflate the tire to prevent their exploding.

His understanding was confirmed by other comments and answers.
My question is what is the net difference between a tire deflating due to the plug melting and the tire deflating due to explosion? Either way, you're landing/taxiing with a flat tire.
The only thing that comes to mind is that once the plane is on the ground and stopped, an exploding tire might injure safety crews and/or pax evacuating.

All three of the answers provided (so far) are very useful. How do I go about selecting one to mark as the answer?

Click the "tick" icon next to the answer you want to accept. If you're asking how to decide which answer to accept, you should choose the one that you felt best answered the question, which is entirely subjective. Also, I'd recommend waiting a while. You only asked your question a couple of hours ago: maybe the most useful answer hasn't been written yet. Or maybe the community's votes will help to guide you.

As I understand it (and was taught in ground schools) the most likely scenario involving a fuse plug melting and deflating a tire, at least for a 747-100 or -200, would not happen during the actual landing or taxiing. It would occur sometime after landing and taxing to parking, when the energy in the overheated brakes has time to transfer to the tires.

@DavidRicherby yes, I'm aware of how to mark an answer, I was wondering which one to choose... Since it is close to Christmas and most folks are busy shopping, I was hoping someone might volunteer some cash to have their answer selected.  ;)

An exploding tire while the plane is rolling will propel debris in various directions.
This happened with the crashed Concorde on takeoff. A chunk of the tire hit the tanks and caused a punctured in it. This then lead to the fire and loss of power.

The chunk was not from a tire, but from a badly maintained US airliner which had taken off from that runway shortly before. It destroyed the tire AND the wing when it was run over by the Concorde.

@PeterKämpf the debris ruptured the tire and chunks of the tire were propelled into the wing according to the official reports.

Interesting, I hadn't considered an explosion on a take off run. Two issues on applying this answer to my original question: 1) take off speed of the Concorde is much higher than most other aircraft, exacerbating the flying debris issue, 2) a melt plug wouldn't have had any impact on the Concorde crash, since the tire exploded due to physical damage, not heat.

@FreeMan a truck tire exploding could take off your head and truck tires have lower pressure than aircraft tires and go slower than an aircraft on takeoff.

@FreeMan It's true that a melt plug wouldn't have helped in the Concorde incident. I think he just gave that example to show the dangers of an exploding tire. Also, while you're right that the Concorde takeoff speed was higher than normal, that would only have mattered if the tire exploded within the last couple of seconds of the roll. At any rate, I'd assume that most of the kinetic energy of the pieces of the tire came from the explosion rather than from the rolling speed of the tire.

@reirab no a lot of the energy does come from the rotation; the debris of a wheel from a jet rolling down the runway at 200 km/h will get a speed of 200 km/h (relative to the non-rotating axle)

@ratchetfreak Yeah, I knew that. I'm curious now how much acceleration would happen from the explosion, though. Of course it would depend on the cross-section and mass of each individual piece.

An explosion creates debris
For aircraft, Foreign Object Damage is a big concern and an exploding tire would be a major source of FOD. This would be a concern to the landing aircraft itself as its engines might suck in the debris of a blown tire, and it would be a concern to other aircraft as tire fragments can be blown all over the runway and might in turn be ingested by the next aircraft landing or taking off.
An explosion might damage the aircraft
Aircraft tires are inflated to very big pressures so the explosion itself or the speed of the fragments might be enough to cause severe damage to the aircraft systems or fuselage.
Explosions are dangerous to people around the aircraft
If an aircraft lands at speeds that could cause the tires or brakes to overheat, firefighters will inspect the brakes and tires of aircraft that have landed and might have overheated the tires or brakes. With thermal plugs the pressure in an overheated tire will be vented in a controlled fashion (the firefighters can predict the direction of the vent) so it's less of a safety issue.

This answer contains real data on tire pressures.

There are also hydraulic and electrical lines inside the wheel wells that can be damaged in a tire explosion.   The primary of the the Travis Barker Learjet crash was rejecting a takeoff past V1 after the tire blew.  It was made worse because debris from the tire damaged the squat switch, causing the thrust reversers to retract.  Although the tire explosion was caused by under-inflation, a similar accident could happen with hot tires.

You are right that a main reason for fuse plugs is safety of people nearby.
Surrounding structure is generally reinforced to protect against tires bursting, but if it bursts while stationary it can cause damage and will send debris in a different pattern than it would if it were moving (which is when tires usually burst).
It also relates to fire safety. An exploding tire can spread burning liquid or debris.
Tires spend most of the flight inside the wheel well. Under normal conditions, brakes will be hottest after landing, and would be allowed to cool down after a rejected takeoff, so the tires should not be excessively hot when retracted. Systems and structure in the wheel well is reinforced, but fires are possible, and an exploding tire in the wheel well can certainly cause damage.

How often do tires explode in the wheel well during flight? Or is that a whole new question?

@FreeMan it's not really common, but something to consider. I am editing to make that more clear.

An exploded tire cannot be reused.  A deflated tire, after relevant inspections, can be reused.
Yes, you will need a new fusible plug but that is a lot less expensive than a new tire.

Compared to the points in the other two answers, this seems very minor, however it is still quite valid.

I hope they didn't reuse the tire from the Concorde

An exploding tyre throws heavy tyre fragments in all directions at high speeds. Fragments might damage the plane but they also might kill anybody nearby, such as emergency services personnel, ground crew and passengers.

One other consideration not yet mentioned.
Aircraft tyres are highly pressurised.  An exploding tyre will throw debris in unpredictable directions.
In the case of a brake or other undercarriage fire, the firefighters are trained to approach the fire from the front or behind since the fusible plugs are designed to rupture and vent the pressure sideways.
Also, a fire in the wheels weakens the alloy.  If the tyre explodes, then sometimes the wheel explodes too and hot pieces of metal zooming around are even worse than the rubber.


text:
Is it possible to use a split rudder as an air brake?
This question (which is the first result for a Google search for "Split rudder aircraft", btw), talks about some of the advantages of the split rudder, including the fact that the lower rudder is smaller for finer adjustments while flying.
If the rudders were equal size, or if there were three pieces, two of them being equal to the third, could they be used as an air brake?
Would there be advantages to doing so vs building in a dedicated air brake?

it'll induce a roll moment and it's less efftective than actual spoilers

The primary purpose of a spoiler is to reduce lift, whereas the primary purpose of a speed brake is to slow the airframe down.  The functions do overlap but a speed brake is not a spoiler.

@ratchetfreak: A three-piece rudder could be used as an air brake without inducing a roll moment. Whether that would be of any practical use, I cannot say.

Split rudder like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:STS-116_landing_port_behind.jpg

It is possible but there are side effects.
If both rudders would be deflected to opposite sides to cancel out each others yaw moments, their drag will act as an air brake. But since the top rudder is further from the center of gravity than the bottom rudder, the resulting roll moments of the rudders don't cancel each other out. As a result the aircraft will start to roll. This can then be counteracted with the ailerons.
Since the rudders don't deflect as far as air brakes would, they would be less effective. If they would be designed to deflect more, the increased forces upon them and on the control system would require a heavier construction and thus add weight to the aircraft.

Yes, a split rudder can be used as a speed brake.  The early versions of the Beech Staggerwing and the space shuttle both have split rudders utilized for speed brakes.

Given the big, blunt fuselage, the split rudder on the Shuttle did not add much drag. It reassured the crew that they have something to change drag, but changing the flight path (both horizontally and vertically) is immensely more effective for glide path control of a delta configuration.

"The shuttle was designed with a low L/D ratio (~ 1) because during the descent the spacecraft must be slowed from about 17,300 mph to about 250 mph at landing." http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/glidshuttle.html


text:
How does carb heat increase the risk of dirt ingestion?
In this question about turning off carb heat just before landing, one of the justifications for doing so is to reduce the likelihood of ingesting dirt into the engine.
How does carb heat (or the lack thereof) affect the amount of dirt that might be ingested into the engine?
I am not a pilot, but I would think there would be some sort of air filter like there is on a car/truck. Also, I would think that, if anything, ice in the carb (while Not Good™/potentially fatal, especially on landing), would reduce the likelihood of getting dirt into the carb by acting somewhat like a filter - i.e. giving dirt a place to land before making it all the way through and into the cylinders.

Carb heat is not only about heating the air going into the carb, it's also a meant to be an alternate air path in case the air intake becomes fouled or the air filter gets clogged by debris, snow or ice. Fuel injected airplane engines typically have an alternate air intake that bypasses the air filter for the same reason, it's part of the checklist to test the alternate air.
The reason there isn't a separate filter for the carburetor heat air is that the same thing that clogged up the main filter could clog up the secondary, it's better to have unfiltered air for a short time than take the chance of losing your engine.


text:
Where do most fighter jets and combat aircraft mostly get shot? ex: body, wings, engine area etc
I'm wondering where fighter jets mostly get shot. I'm trying to design a plane that might help this issue if most planes get shot in the wings. If they get shot elsewhere I guess I'm going to have to come up with new ideas.

Most airplanes don't get "shot" anymore. They get destroyed by missiles. And most missiles don't even touch the plane, they proximity explode. If they do get shot, they get shot wherever the bullets happen to hit, as a fighter pilot you aim for the airplane, not specific parts of it (unless its very large, like old B-17's often got shot in the engines).

If you design a plane with bullet proof wings, people are just going to aim elsewhere

The experience of Abraham Wald seems relevant...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald

@DJohnM: Thanks for pointing out this case, but this Wikipedia article seems to limit Wald's action in the area to (quite rightly) criticize the statistical methodology used by the Navy. The Navy's study itself is not exposed, nor its outcomes.

Potential relevant.

It all depends on the types of weapons employed, the aspect of the attacking and defending aircraft and the off-boresight angle between the aircraft in question.
Air to air and surface to air missiles employ proximity fused HE Blast / rod or pellet fragmentation warheads in them.  They are guided to close proximity with the target aircraft and explode like hand grenades, spraying the targets with shrapnel, damaging structure, engines, fuel and hydraulic lines, even the pilot.  Sites of damage depend on the angle of missile impact as well as the proximity of the target within the lethal blast radius of the warhead and thus how concentrated the spread of the shrapnel pattern is.
Air to air gunnery is much more akin to bird hunting with a shotgun and less like modern guided weapons.  The most effective air to air gun systems against fighters tend to be smaller caliber weapons with high rates of fire and high muzzle velocities resulting in flat ballistic trajectories with good range.  The ideal gun kill is maneuvering up on the target's six o'clock and pumping rounds into the aft fuselage and engines.  High angle off kills can also be accomplished by leading on your target, then firing a burst which the target then flies through and gets peppered with rounds, again similar to hunting flying water fowl.  In an off angle shot the burst will be widespread over the dorsal surfaces of the fuselage and wings.

The shotgun analogy also applies to the missiles.  With their high forward velocity, the fragmentation warhead generates an expanding cone pattern.  That's why the warhead actually detonates some distance before it gets to the target.


text:
What does the callout "300... MINIMUMS" mean?
MINIMUMS.... 400 APPROACHING MINIMUMS...   300 MINIMUMS.   Is this a reference to gravity? Needing more speed? Or the minimums you can see to the lights on your approach to land?
I looked this question up and someone said it had to do with being able to see the light on the runway when you are on your approach to land. But I have found that when you are in your minimums, 300 ft from ground, you need to increase your speed to avoid falling quickly or it results in a hard landing.
Do the minimums talk about gravity?

See this question too.

Your friend is right. The "minimums" call is done at the level over the ground at which you must have a visual reference to the runway environment in order to continue your approach. If you do not have a visual reference at minimums (due to bad weather), you have to perform a missed approach.

OK,  thank you so much!


text:
Are there certification requirements on Dual Inputs?
Is anyone of you aware of (certification) requirements or similar for dual input, and the priority management of dual controls?
I only know the Airbus philosophy of summing both inputs and limit them afterwards, but I wonder if there are any requirements on this?

Here's what EASA Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 says about design for dual controls:

CS 25.399
  Dual control system
(a) Each dual control system must be designed for the pilots operating in opposition, using individual pilot forces not less than –
(1) 0·75 times those obtained under CS 25.395; or
(2) The minimum forces specified in CS 25.397 (c).
(b) The control system must be designed for pilot forces applied in the same direction, using individual pilot forces not less than 0·75 times those obtained under CS 25.395.

And in many places the requirements state that it must be demonstrated

...that exceptional skill is not required to control the aeroplane

The A320 complies. It is designed for control of one pilot at a time, like all other aeroplanes. There is no requirement for a dual control system to be mechanically linked. The B737 columns and wheels can be uncoupled after an elevator or aileron jams, the remaining control provides input on top of that of the jammed circuit.


text:
Is it recommended to have an ADS-B transponder in ALT mode on the ground?
Early on in training I was told that unless the airport specifically noted it on the chart, that the transponder was turned to ALT (altitude) mode just prior to taking the runway for take-off (lights, camera, action), and was changed back to SBY (standby) immediately after exiting the runway.
Recently we had a Garmin GTX-345 ADS-B transponder installed in our aircraft and as part of the ADS-B rebate program you need to do a check-out in "rule airspace". When I got the test report from the FAA I noticed that I passed the air portion but failed the ground portion due to an insufficient number of reports (messages) while on the ground. I retook the test making sure to put the transponder in ALT mode at the hangar and subsequently passed.
This leads me to believe that the transponder should be in ALT mode pretty much all the time. Is there any recommendations from the FAA that say that ADS-B transponders should be active while on the ground?
The GTX-345 Manual (2-1) has this to say:

The transponder system no longer supports a pilot selectable GND mode. The
  transponder should always be in ALT mode prior to moving on the airport surface.
  It must be in ALT mode when operating in certain controlled airspace, in
  accordance with 14 CFR 91.215. For guidance on transponder operation, refer to
  the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), 4-1-20(a)(3)

(Emphasis mine)
Is this backed up by the FAA?

@RalphJ Actually, no. The answer is the same and it doesn't matter if you have ADS-B or not.  The transponder should be on and in ALT mode on while taxiing regardless.  Ron even starts off his question telling us how he was taught (which is now superseded with new guidance) and his quote references the same guidance that applies to both.

Yes, it's in the the AIM 4-1-20:

3. Transponder and ADS-B operations on the
  ground. Civil and military aircraft should operate with the transponder in
  the altitude reporting mode (consult the aircraft’s flight manual to
  determine the specific transponder position to enable altitude
  reporting) and ADS-B Out transmissions enabled (if equipped) at all
  airports, any time the aircraft is positioned on any portion of an
  airport movement area. This includes all defined taxiways and runways.

I wonder though if this is meant to clarify 91.215, the AIM as far as I know is not regulatory but advisory in nature.

@RonBeyer Well, you did ask for "recommendations" from the FAA :-)

I'd upvote the answer again just for that comment if I could :). 92.215 reads like all transponders must be in ALT mode while operating on the surface, which leads me to think that my training was incorrect in having it in SBY during taxi, but then again why would an airport like MKE have a comment that reads like this: ASDE-X IN USE. OPERATE TRANSPONDERS WITH ALTITUDE REPORTING MODE AND ADS-B (IF EQUIPPED) ENABLED ON ALL TWYS AND RYS.?

@RonBeyer This recommendation changed recently (maybe two years ago?) to what is in the AIM now, which is probably why you were taught differently.  The GTX manual even gave you the reference that Pondlife quoted for you.  :)

Back in 2015, the FAA published a SAFO advising pilots to have  transponders in altitude reporting mode whenever their aircraft is on an airport movement area at ALL airports, to ensure proper reporting at any airports equiped with ASDE-X or A-SMGCS: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2015/SAFO15006.pdf

The (old) guidance with respect to transponders being off on the ground was done in part due to the reply characteristics of older design transponders.